White Labs WLP001 Dry Yeast Coming Soon

[Northern_Brewer]

Why would anyone buy dry yeast from a liquid yeast company when there are so many excellent dry yeasts in the market.

That's like asking why you would buy brewing yeast from a bread yeast company when there are so many excellent brewing yeasts on the market. Except the likes of Lallemand manage to produce both despite being >90% bread yeast, and in some cases produce brewing yeasts that meet a requirement better, and/or at a better price, than their competitors. So people buy it, it doesn't matter what other stuff they do.

And in this case, WLP001 has quite a brand attached to it, which means that for a percentage of buyers they will be prepared to pay a premium for it. If selling less at a higher margin works better for White Labs, then good luck to them.

 

[Miraculix]

Honestly, I would buy a premium English dry strain for that price. But only if the beer results are as good as the liquid equivalent. Doesn't have to taste exactly the same but it has to be as English as the liquid version. I don't get this from any other dry yeast yet, so there would be the selling point.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

That's like asking why you would buy brewing yeast from a bread yeast company when there are so many excellent brewing yeasts on the market. Except the likes of Lallemand manage to produce both despite being >90% bread yeast, and in some cases produce brewing yeasts that meet a requirement better, and/or at a better price, than their competitors. So people buy it, it doesn't matter what other stuff they do.

And in this case, WLP001 has quite a brand attached to it, which means that for a percentage of buyers they will be prepared to pay a premium for it. If selling less at a higher margin works better for White Labs, then good luck to them.

No it’s not, it’s asking why buy from a company with no dry yeast experience. And they want a premium price.

 

[rtstrider]

If I didn't have wlp001 already banked up, or the ability to purchase Sierra Nevada Pale Ale in my area, then I'd probably bite to give it a shot. I will say it's the closest Cali ale strain I've tried and pairs up well with Sierra Nevada Pale Ale clones!

 

[RJB.]

I was under the assumption that the equipment needed to produce dry yeast on a commercial scale was incredibly expensive and that there are only a handful of companies in the world that produce dry yeast (Lallemand, Fermentis, AEB). What are the chances that White Labs is outsourcing this to one of those big dry yeast manufacturers and just slapping the WL label on it?

 

[Northern_Brewer]

I was under the assumption that the equipment needed to produce dry yeast on a commercial scale was incredibly expensive and that there are only a handful of companies in the world that produce dry yeast (Lallemand, Fermentis, AEB). What are the chances that White Labs is outsourcing this to one of those big dry yeast manufacturers and just slapping the WL label on it?

No it’s not, it’s asking why buy from a company with no dry yeast experience. And they want a premium price.

As we've discussed elsewhere, they're outsourcing manufacturing to Lallemand according to the packet :

 

[mac_1103]

What are the chances that White Labs is outsourcing this to one of those big dry yeast manufacturers and just slapping the WL label on it?

I'd say the chances are excellent. I'd also say there's nothing wrong with that. It's still their yeast.

 

[RJB.]

As we've discussed elsewhere, they're outsourcing manufacturing to Lallemand according to the packet :
View attachment 815886

I suspected as much. Good catch, I didn’t even notice that on the packaging.

I'd say the chances are excellent. I'd also say there's nothing wrong with that. It's still their yeast.

If it means there are more dry yeast strains on the market I’m all for it!

 

[Bobby_M]

As one of their vendors, I also sent an email asking them exactly what my marketing story would be on these.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

As one of their vendors, I also sent an email asking them exactly what my marketing story would be on these.

I suspect they'll say something along the lines of :
https://www.whitelabs.com/news-update-detail?id=94
It's a difficult one because they can't be too rude about wet yeast, but the convenience of dry is one selling point, and also potentially one can push not needing aeration in the same way, which is useful for hoppy stuff. It'll maybe make a bit more sense if you see WLP001 as the trial run for the next two, which presumably will be competition for 34/70 and Verdant, aimed at beers that are more sensitive to oxygen.

 

[day_trippr]

It will be interesting to see someone do comparos between WLP001 wet v dry to see if the latter has a high level of fidelity to the former. Because if it doesn't, they are likely good and truly screwed based on that price because even their fan bois will exit, stage left...

Cheers!

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I'm guessing WL is banking on people in the US buying it because of the pitfalls of liquid yeast travelling long distances in hot weather, and then re-pitching a number of times to mitigate the cost. Dry 001 should arrive in better condition than liquid, I guess.

 

[pocketmon]

People who think US-05 is the same or as good as WLP001 wouldn't buy liquid version of it. Let alone the dry version.
If the dry version generates the same or at least similar flavor as the liquid version, people who prefers WLP001 over, say, US-05 will buy it.
If price were the only thing people consider, there would not be any homebrewers.

 

[bwible]

Since its a new product, you wonder if the cost will be initially high then drop some over time like we see with many things. Once they meet the initial demand then get everything set up and all their processes and things in place.

Selling dry yeast for the same price as their liquid doesn’t seem like a winning model. They have also made a big deal for years and years about advertising their liquid packs as “pitchable”. The 11g dry pack seems like it would only be good for up to 3 gallons by their literature.

 

[Bassman2003]

As usual, we will watch it all play out. WL turning to dry yeast is natural given they have lost market share in a lot of LHBS. Trying to make it a premium product is kind of a stretch when we know they are not even making it. I like the strain but why pay more than liquid or comparable dry strains? Seems like this might have gone over a little better when WCIPA was hot.

 

[bwible]

Seems like this might have gone over a little better when WCIPA was hot.

You mean its still not? That a whole different thread full of strong opinions

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Lallemand must being doing petty well out of their Verdant IPA and Whitelab will be looking to gain some market share by moving into the growing ADY market I reckon. There a re huge advantages in terms of shipping, storage and shelf life with dry yeast and the quality and range is improving. Lallemand has obviously been investing a lot in the technology and in research and has launched recent products that have closed the gap to liquid yeast in terms of flavour and performance. WL needs to get the pricing right and that will surely adjust with time. It will have to I think. The problem with WLP001 is that there are dry yeasts that do a very similar job for a fraction of the launch price. Personally, I wouldn't pay $12 for it if I can get US-05 or Bry-97 for half that or less. Does bottled SNPA have live yeast that can be cultured?

It will be interesting to see which other 2 strains are launched in dry format this year. What they really want is a popular strain that retains character and performs well after drying. Lalbrew New England didn't shake the world cos it didn't perform nearly so well as the liquid version. Verdant has shown that a relative of 1318 can perform very well, so perhaps we will something of that ilk from the WL catalogue, which could be a big hit. An all round fruity yeast for English and American styles. I bet one of the two releases will be a lager strain, probably whatever WL strain is most popular, if it performs after drying. Something flexible temperature wise might make sense. I wouldn't be surprised if WL submitted a range of English and lager strains to Lallemand for drying and testing.

 

[Bassman2003]

I tried one packet of Verdant last year in a 1.058 IPA and it crapped out in the high teens. Other anecdotal evidence of poor or good dry yeast performance abounds but I will be sticking with liquid as I had forever before trying this strain. To everybody there own, but to pay more for dry when there is no secret technology giving equal-to-liquid performance is just plain over charging imho. Best of luck to them.

 

[day_trippr]

Does Verdant ferment maltotriose? Yeast strains commonly associated with New England IPA do not ferment maltotriose efficiently if at all leaving the residual sweetness typical of the style. Conversely, strains that can efficiently process maltotriose leading to a dry beer aren't typically used to brew neipas...

Cheers!

 

[eliastheodosis]

I'm reading through and really enjoy the discussion. Some good points that I wasn't thinking about. I'm still not sure I get the move from WL here, though. What untapped piece of the yeast-buyer pie are they looking to pick up? I agree that I would pay the same price for a dry version of a yeast that performs equally to the liquid. I don't see the downside.

However, in that case...are they really targeting people that are already buying their liquid 001? If so then what happens to their liquid sales? I'm assuming that's not their plan unless liquid sales of 001 are so bad that they are giving up on the liquid and hanging their hopes on the dry version. If that's true it would be pretty interesting. Beyond that I see two other types of buyers they could target...

Buyer 1 - People that already use a dry yeast similar to 001 and are curious for an alternative. That would probably be the bucket where I fall. But I'm fine with my packs of BRY-97, or even US-05, for the occasional beer where I need it. I already have my yeast. I like it and I would hesitate to pay 3x more just for something different. Price isn't my main concern, but if I didn't pay attention at all I would be broke as a joke. So... is this piece of the pie that big?

Buyer 2 - People that would really like to use 001 but can't get their hands on the liquid version very easily. Maybe this is a slightly bigger piece of the pie but I would be willing to bet that most of these people have found alternatives. If they don't like dry then they have probably found their liquid alternative. One way or another they have a current favorite yeast that fits this niche. Couple that with the fact that brewers are humans and humans are largely creatures of habit. So what is going to push these people out of their current habits either try a dry yeast or trade up from their current dry yeast for a considerable markup?

I am really glad to see more dry yeast on the market, and I want to see it succeed, but I think they will have this same issue with other strains. If they can't get the price down then they would lose buyers 1 and 2 above and the only option left seems to be to predate their liquid sales.

 

[eliastheodosis]

Does Verdant ferment maltotriose? Yeast strains commonly associated with New England IPA do not ferment maltotriose efficiently if at all leaving the residual sweetness typical of the style. Conversely, strains that can efficiently process maltotriose leading to a dry beer aren't typically used to brew neipas

I can't find anything definitive but on their low alc guide it specifically lists only Windsor and London as maltotriose negative...

https://www.lallemandbrewing.com/wp...AL-bestpractices-Low_alcohol_beer-DIGITAL.pdf

 

[Bassman2003]

Does Verdant ferment maltotriose? Yeast strains commonly associated with New England IPA do not ferment maltotriose efficiently if at all leaving the residual sweetness typical of the style. Conversely, strains that can efficiently process maltotriose leading to a dry beer aren't typically used to brew neipas...

Cheers!

Not sure. I really don't know much about NEIPAs. I might be off base but attributed the performance to the yeast being dry rather than liquid. It seems most things that are easier or convenient come with consequences. Some bearable, some not. Unless WL can show me that the dry version of WLP001 used as directed equals the liquid, it is a tough sell for me. Granted I make starters and help the liquid yeast out where I would be just pitching the dry. So maybe unfair?

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I'm reading through and really enjoy the discussion. Some good points that I wasn't thinking about. I'm still not sure I get the move from WL here, though. What untapped piece of the yeast-buyer pie are they looking to pick up? I agree that I would pay the same price for a dry version of a yeast that performs equally to the liquid. I don't see the downside.

However, in that case...are they really targeting people that are already buying their liquid 001? If so then what happens to their liquid sales? I'm assuming that's not their plan unless liquid sales of 001 are so bad that they are giving up on the liquid and hanging their hopes on the dry version. If that's true it would be pretty interesting. Beyond that I see two other types of buyers they could target...

Buyer 1 - People that already use a dry yeast similar to 001 and are curious for an alternative. That would probably be the bucket where I fall. But I'm fine with my packs of BRY-97, or even US-05, for the occasional beer where I need it. I already have my yeast. I like it and I would hesitate to pay 3x more just for something different. Price isn't my main concern, but if I didn't pay attention at all I would be broke as a joke. So... is this piece of the pie that big?

Buyer 2 - People that would really like to use 001 but can't get their hands on the liquid version very easily. Maybe this is a slightly bigger piece of the pie but I would be willing to bet that most of these people have found alternatives. If they don't like dry then they have probably found their liquid alternative. One way or another they have a current favorite yeast that fits this niche. Couple that with the fact that brewers are humans and humans are largely creatures of habit. So what is going to push these people out of their current habits either try a dry yeast or trade up from their current dry yeast for a considerable markup?

I am really glad to see more dry yeast on the market, and I want to see it succeed, but I think they will have this same issue with other strains. If they can't get the price down then they would lose buyers 1 and 2 above and the only option left seems to be to predate their liquid sales.

My guess is that perhaps WL anticipate growing demand for dry yeast. They may be seeing breweries moving in that direction. The quality is improving. A lot of craft breweries use dry here in the UK and presumably in the US and other countries too. If Tree House uses dry, it must tempt a lot of people?

Lallemand has been investing in this future and maybe WL has decided to join them and see where it goes. Offer both alternatives. There are downsides to dry but there are also upsides. I use both myself because sometimes I want the advantage of liquid and sometimes I want the advantage of dry. I just split a beer 3 ways recently, one dry and two liquid, and my preference is for the dry yeast beer. On this occasion.

Not sure. I really don't know much about NEIPAs. I might be off base but attributed the performance to the yeast being dry rather than liquid. It seems most things that are easier or convenient come with consequences. Some bearable, some not. Unless WL can show me that the dry version of WLP001 used as directed equals the liquid, it is a tough sell for me. Granted I make starters and help the liquid yeast out where I would be just pitching the dry. So maybe unfair?

I think it's good practice to pitch freshly grown yeast from a starter. But a lot of home brewers and small breweries prefer the convenience of dry regardless, for various reasons. Dry is popular. Perhaps particularly in countries other than North America - where the liquid yeast is mostly produced. In the UK dry yeast is easily in the majority. Europe, Australia and NZ too I would imagine.

We pay £8-10 for Whitelabs and Wyeast, £15 for purepitch, in the UK. The other liquid suppliers are harder to source and more expensive. Dry yeasts range from around £2 to £4.50 ish, with lager strains at the high end. US05 and S04 are £2.50 - 3.00. Lallemand all £3.50 - 4.00.

There is a Scottish supplier doing non branded dry yeast packs which are all under £2 if you buy 3 packs or more and they seem popular. Price and convenience seem the key drivers for a lot of UK home brewers. Dry is seen as more reliable than liquid here. We don't really have a starter culture here, if you'll forgive the pun. A % of UK home brewers buys liquid, maybe 10 to 20%. A % of those makes starters. The vast majority buys dry I believe.

I've used Verdant several times and have always had apparent attenuation in the 74 - 78% range. The non maltotriose yeasts are lower than that. And they generally were isolated from multi strains and are probably being misused in single strain form. An advantage of dry yeast is I can afford to buy a variety of packs and pitch two or three strains together. And by repitching dry yeast into subsequent beers you can get into a more liquid position if you wish.

 

[mac_1103]

There are downsides to dry but there are also upsides.

I've read this thread and a lot of similar ones, and I still scratch my head when people talk about the disadvantages of dry yeast or say things like "I might buy it when they prove that the performance is equal to liquid." What are the downsides of the format of the same product that is more stable and cheaper and easier to ship? What about the performance of the two versions isn't the same?

I've always used dry. Always direct pitch. Never had a batch that didn't attenuate as expected in a reasonable amount of time. Now I can see where maybe yeast expression is a bit more complicated than that, but ISTM that this is much more about pitch rate, temp control and other process parameters than it is about whether you started by buying a dry or liquid pack.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I've read this thread and a lot of similar ones, and I still scratch my head when people talk about the disadvantages of dry yeast or say things like "I might buy it when they prove that the performance is equal to liquid." What are the downsides of the format of the same product that is more stable and cheaper and easier to ship? What about the performance of the two versions isn't the same?

I've always used dry. Always direct pitch. Never had a batch that didn't attenuate as expected in a reasonable amount of time. Now I can see where maybe yeast expression is a bit more complicated than that, but ISTM that this is much more about pitch rate, temp control and other process parameters than it is about whether you started by buying a dry or liquid pack.

Whitelab says...

• Production of liquid yeast is generally smaller scale, flexible, and can be optimized to provide a much greater selection of strains
• Liquid counterparts will have more distinct aromas and complex flavors due to the health and viability
• More sensitive QC specifications allow liquid yeast to be repitched for more generations without the risk of increased microbial population

I think most people who prefer liquid quote the first two of those - greater selection to choose from, and more distinct aromas and complex flavours, which are affected by the drying process. We all prioritise things differently, and perceive things differently, there's no right and wrong, just what works best for each individual, I believe.

 

[mac_1103]

• Production of liquid yeast is generally smaller scale, flexible, and can be optimized to provide a much greater selection of strains
• Liquid counterparts will have more distinct aromas and complex flavors due to the health and viability
• More sensitive QC specifications allow liquid yeast to be repitched for more generations without the risk of increased microbial population

First point is becoming less and less true over time. Third point is probably irrelevant to most homebrewers, and can be overcome pretty easily by banking the yeast instead of always serially repitching. Second might have some merit, but I'd actually be more concerned about the health and vitality of a pure pitch pack than a dry sachet since I have no visibility into storage conditions after manufacture.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

First point is becoming less and less true over time. Third point is probably irrelevant to most homebrewers, and can be overcome pretty easily by banking the yeast instead of always serially repitching. Second might have some merit, but I'd actually be more concerned about the health and vitality of a pure pitch pack than a dry sachet since I have no visibility into storage conditions after manufacture.

Yes I think it's not a simple debate. The pros and cons for any individual depend on some variables like location and habits and time and preferences and I guess what WL is doing is catering for different folks. You have a choice....

 

[Bassman2003]

I've read this thread and a lot of similar ones, and I still scratch my head when people talk about the disadvantages of dry yeast or say things like "I might buy it when they prove that the performance is equal to liquid." What are the downsides of the format of the same product that is more stable and cheaper and easier to ship? What about the performance of the two versions isn't the same?

I've always used dry. Always direct pitch. Never had a batch that didn't attenuate as expected in a reasonable amount of time. Now I can see where maybe yeast expression is a bit more complicated than that, but ISTM that this is much more about pitch rate, temp control and other process parameters than it is about whether you started by buying a dry or liquid pack.

No worries either way. This discussion has centered more about the price rather than offering dry yeast. I think it is great that they are getting into dry yeast but would prefer them not just farm out the production. Then what makes it better than existing dry yeast other than the strain?

As to your point about what makes the performance of the two versions the same - if you do not know, then how can you have an opinion? If you are truly asking, the drying process damages the yeast cells. They are getting better at it, but it is up to you how much your brewing time is worth. I have come to the stage where yeast is the most important part of the brewday. They do all of the heavy lifting. Now, to your point about shipping etc... If one made a starter out of a dry yeast pack maybe the lag time and performance/flavor would improve. But at that point, why not use the liquid?

If all one has access to is dry, then your fate is sealed anyway and anything new is good.

 

[mac_1103]

I think it is great that they are getting into dry yeast but would prefer them not just farm out the production. Then what makes it better than existing dry yeast other than the strain?

I'm actually happy that they are farming it out to people who already have a process worked out. And yes, I do believe that the fact that it is WLP001 instead of US-05 is the only real selling point.

As to your point about what makes the performance of the two versions the same - if you do not know, then how can you have an opinion? If you are truly asking, the drying process damages the yeast cells.

I do have an opinion about attenuation, which is backed up by experience and which I believe is shared by many. But I thought I was pretty clear that I was "truly asking" about other things that people might be lumping together under the generic term "performance." But since you brought it up, I am also of the opinion (this time purely speculative) that the drying process just might damage the yeast less than shipping and handling of liquid preparations.

 

[DoctorDuvel]

I'm actually happy that they are farming it out to people who already have a process worked out.

I wonder if outsourcing is what will keep the price on the high side. Not sure.